Collegiality Under Threat?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This symposium aims to stimulate debate, reflection and research on collegiality by management scholars. Collegiality as a set of values and practices is central to the idea of the university. Yet it appears that in many places collegiality is under threat from managerialism. In spite of its centrality to our institutions and working lives, collegiality has received remarkably little attention from management scholars. This symposium aims to stimulate debate, reflection and research on collegiality within the management discipline. It brings together four papers by teams of authors based in North America, Europe, the UK and Australia, which examine collegiality through different lenses. They are united by a concern with understanding collegiality and the threats it currently faces and encouraging discussion of how it might be protected and expanded. Governance Dilemmas and Academic Freedom in Contemporary Universities Author: Kerstin Sahlin; Uppsala U. Author: Ulla Eriksson-Zetterquist; Ulla Eriksson-Zetterquist An Unsettling Crisis of Collegial Governance Author: Logan Crace; Alberta School of Business Author: Joel Gehman; George Washington U. Author: Michael Lounsbury; U. of Alberta For Slow Collegiality Author: Peter Fleming; U. of Technology, Sydney Author: Bill Harley; U. of Melbourne Colleagueship, Community and Communication of Intent at an Anonymous Business School Author: Jakov Jandric; U. of Edinburgh Author: Rick Delbridge; Cardiff U.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".